Appeal No. 1999-0155
Application 08/369,676
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223
USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). We are further
guided by the precedent of our reviewing court that the
limitations from the disclosure are not to be imported into
the claims. In re Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543,
113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230
USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also note that the arguments
not made separately for any individual claim or claims are
considered waived. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a) and (c). In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
Appellant, looking for nonobviousness distinctions over the
prior art.”);
In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ 247, 254 (CCPA
1967)(“This court has uniformly followed the sound rule that
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007